### Man,gay Isk$Gpatr’Pck* cli(rirman Committee onQtntin House of 51st Legiala~twe Au&a, TCNLPS Qpi&on 1Jo.v-772,. -



### Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 2 (V-772)

andtelegraph expenses, andshaU paykis 

### othercontingent expense& The Committee on Contingent Expenses ofthe House shall provide rules andregulations for carrying outthe purposes ofthis Resolution. Supply items **drawn** by the members from the House 

### shallbecbargedtefhe member andpaid for by him outofthe allowance herein provided.” InOpinion No, V-84 this office considered thevalidity of abill submitted by Hon. Claud GiIrner, Chairman. Committee on Appropriations ofthe House ofthe 50th Legislature, Sec. 1ofwhich we quote: *There is hereby appropriated 

### outofsny funds

inthe State Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of Three Hundred Theueand 

### Dollars($300.000.00) **or** 

### samuchihareof **as**

### maybesiecasspry, topayincidental expenses ,0fthemew&crs ofthe **Regular** Session ofthe 50th Legislature, such expenses lintto exceed Ten Dollars ($10.00) per day per member.” The opinienheld thattkebill was invaIid for thewant ofa preeriating law therefor 

### ~.und.er .Article III, Sectlen 44 0f the Constitution. The opinion further keld tkatthebill was invalid as a pratuity tothe individual members as the claims 

### were for personal business 6f the respective members.



### Many ca6esfrem other states 

## are set outin Opinion No. O-3778 holding thatthe Texas Legislature could not constitutionally vote its members $50 amonth for stenographic andother expense between sessions. Kansas, Oregon. andWashington cases have invalidated appropriations of $5 per day to each member for expenses. Griffith v. Turner, 233 Pac. 510: State v. Clausen, 253 Pac. 805; Jones v. Hess. 285 Pac. 205. Similarly the Arkansas Supreme Court invalidated anappropriation of $,108per member for expenses while attending anextraordinary session. Ashtan v. Fergusoa. 261 S.W. 624.

The latest case is that ofScroggie v. Bates, 48 S.E.Zd 634 (July 1948) bythe Supreme Court ofSleuthCarolina. There the Legislature voted each member $780 “as official expenses in connection withthe 1947 session.
. . andwork between sessions
. . .” The **court** held that:Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 3 (V-772)

.

“ln providing that each member 0, . shall be paid the same amount, that it be paid %s official expenses in connection with the 1947 session’ and

‘work between sessions,’ and finally in providing that the amount appropriated may be paid without the required itemization’
. , . whan considered together, make the conclusion inevitable without the aid of extrinsic facts and circumstances that the real intent and purpose of the appropriation
. . . was to increase the compensation and per diem of the members , , , in violation bf the Constitution of this State, and the statute is therefore void.” In a letter opinion of March 12, 1947, addressed to Hon. J. F. Ward, Chairman, Contingent Expense Committee, House of Representatives, Austin, in answering a similar question it was said:

“The Contingent Expense Fund allotment is, of course, made for the purpose of meeting those comparatively small items of expense in connection with the sitting of the Legislature which are not foreseeatie in kind or quantity, and properly so, in recognition of the fundamental policy that the Legislature must carry on in the discharge of its duties. In the nature of things, the allotment may not be resorted to except for those items of expenses that have a legitimate and real relevancy to the official service being performed. In other words, it means that the compensation or payment whatsoever must be for something for a public purpose rather than for the personal interest of the person paid whether he be an employee or Representative.”

The language quoted indicated the real purpose of a contingent expense approprizition. This office adheres to the holdings above cited, and the principles therein involved, It is well known that $10.00 per day is not adequate compensation for members of the Legislature, and the per diem should be increased. But to be valid it must be done by constitutional amendment rather than by a statutory expense allowance,


### SUMMARY

The Legislature may not constitutionally increase its per diem by directing the payment toHon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 4 (V-772)

each of its members the lump sum of $lO,OO per day for expenses during its regular session. Your6 very truly, ATTORNEYQZNERALOF TEXAS


# w G&

Ocie Spew AssistaM 0S:wb:erc APPROVED:

iiiL&&&